-The satirical real-world references (which do not earn the dignity of the word _allusions_) completely ruin the mood, to the extent that I don't think this is really a book _for_ children. (Not even an ideological book for children, meant to socialize them into the correct beliefs.) It's a novelty "children's book" for the brief amusement of ideologically conservative grown-ups.
-
-This might partially explain the poor illustration quality. (The illustrations aren't _ugly_, just—very amateurish. The visible sketch-lines mark it as the probable product of Matt Walsh's friend who likes to draw sometimes, rather than a serious artist with a portfolio.) To compete in the regular children's book market—to try to be the kind of book someone would unironically give as a gift for their niece or nephew, you want the illustrations to be beautiful or endearing, something kids or their minders will _want_ to look at many times. _Johnny the Walrus_ just—doesn't have that ambition. The ideological gimmick is the point. The point having been made, there was evidently no need to spring for a more expensive artist than Matt Walsh's friend who likes to draw sometimes.
+This might partially explain the poor illustration quality. The illustrations aren't _ugly_, just—very amateurish. The visible sketch-lines mark it as the probable product of Matt Walsh's friend who likes to draw sometimes, rather than a serious artist with a portfolio. To compete in the regular children's book market—to try to be the kind of book someone would unironically give as a gift for their niece or nephew, you want the illustrations to be beautiful or endearing, something kids or their minders will _want_ to look at many times. _Johnny the Walrus_ just—doesn't have that ambition. The ideological gimmick is the point. The point having been made, there was evidently no need to spring for a more expensive artist than Matt Walsh's friend who likes to draw sometimes.